Recently fired FBI man Peter Strozk seems to already have found a new occupation. Professional beggar.
After being fired by his own agency, the “friends” of Peter Strozk started a Go Fund Me campaign for the disgraced former agent. In only day it has raised over $200K which is suppose to go towards Strozk’s legal defense, although in the actual fundraising campaign it doesn’t say exactly how the money will be used, only that updates will be made. Below is a quote from the campaign:
“All funds raised on this GoFundMe will be put into a trust dedicated to covering Pete’s hefty – and growing – legal costs and his lost income. The trust is being created and details about its management will be shared here as things progress.”
However, I’m not sure what “hefty” legal costs the campaign is referring to.
Also strange is the amount of anonymous donors which seem to be much more prevalent than with other popular Go Fund Me campaigns.
Why would donors want to remain anonymous? One obvious explanation is that this some slush fund or back door payoff for previous services done by Strozk that needs to be laundered somehow.
Receiving money through a Go Fund Me like campaign seems to be the new way Democratic operatives are skirting the law. Recently we saw Michael Avenetti open a crown funding campaign for his legal client, Stormy Daniels. The campaign quickly received over $400K. This seems to be a way to back door fund political operations without actually disclosing the fact that it’s a paid operation.
But even for the sake of argument, let’s say all these donations to Strozk are legitimate, it means that rank and file Democrats now believe that donating money to a wealthy man who was fired somehow equates to “fighting the power”. The logic here is beyond absurd.
But nearly everything surrounding Strozk is shrouded in suspicious evidence. For example, his “affair” with Lisa Page. It’s very likely that they had no real affair at all. The whole thing was a cover story to make their texts look like personal communications and not FBI agents communicating with each other, which would have been a sign of far more serious bias within the FBI.
In the intelligence world, this is a type of “limited hang out”. The purpose being you disclose something that seems embarrassing or damaging on purpose (the limited hang out) with the goal to make people think you must be acting totally transparent if you are willing to disclose such embarrassing information. So in this case, the “affair” was a lie made to make people think they must be coming clean if they are willing to divulge such a secret.
But in any event, I suppose we’ll have to see were professional beggar Peter Strozk ends up next. Maybe Michael Avenetti will represent him?